Debate me on Climate Change

I'll try to answer any questions or challenges you have about the topic as best as I can

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea
youtube.com/watch?v=G8zOHZINyG8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Lizard people

Why are greenpeace anti-nuclear energy when it's the cleanest big source there is?

Natural climate progress. Not man made. Nothing to worry about because we can't change it.

Just be smart and don't buy beach front property with long term investment in mind.

Because leftists and logic are like water and oil.

Mein fuhrer?

wrong, the temperature trend can't be explained without a man-made climate forcing

than explain why the temp on Mars and Venus are both increasing? Not a lot of man made influence there.

>what is ice age cycles
>what is earth axis tilt shift
>what is "I have only 150 years of data for my shitty chart so I can extort more taxes from productive people so my degenerate r-selected kind can live a parasitic life"
hang yourself lefty

No human activity will cause a noticeable change in the climate for the positive in at least 200 years, so climate policy is useless.

Why so preoccupied with carbon emissions when mercury pollution is far more pressing and one of the major causes happens to be burning coal ANYWAY. Is it, perhaps, because the other major cause is the refining process for gold and the people who are pushing AGW so hard wouldn't benefit from cutting off the gold supply?

Are climate change denialists controlled opposition so that (((they))) can make more oil profits?

Venus I don't know but I know that the Mars increase is due to dust storms exposing darker areas on the surface of the planet, which absorb incoming solar irradiance better than lighter areas

Whta I think you're trying to imply is that there is an increase in solar insolation. The reasons climatologists don't attribute the rise in temperature to the sun is both because we can measure the output of the sun very precisely with satellites in orbit and on earth and because an insolation forcing is inconsistent with the cooling we see in the stratosphere (if it were the sun, we would see warming through the whole vertical extension of the atmosphere)

how can climate change be real if we had snow this year. blown the fuck out.

I assume by "ice ages" you mean "glacial periods"

The glacial-interglacial cycle is paced by modulations of earth's orbital elements, which operate on a time scale of several tens of thousands of years. It can't produce warming beyond 2 standard deviations of variability within a few decades

Another thing nobody mentions on climate change debate. We need 5x the amount of C02 in the atmosphere for optimum conditions for plant life

because somewhere in the building of a nuclear power plant someone is going to do something lazy to "cut costs" and then 30 years later when it hasn't had maintenance there will be a huge leak and more refugees will be made.

Literally impossible with Molten Salt Thorium Reactors, which also cannot be easily weaponized, use far more common a fuel and also burn said fuel far more evenly, as opposed to the extremely wasteful and hazardous uranium rods we currently use which need to have the pellets inside of which rearanged on a regular basis.

In my opinion there's no point arguing with people that don't wanna hear it, let them choke to death on toxic air or drown in their shitty states and countries that don't have environmental regulation. Be smart and move to a place with lots of trees and mountains.

You may as well try teaching calculus to a dog.

catapulting atmospheric chemistry back into the Jurassic within a 200 years or so will do plants no good
But we should be more interested in the impact on humans and our civilization anyway

No going to touch this one, OP?

no because a. I made this thread to discuss climate change (and therefore CO2 emission), not mercury poisoning and b. I haven't got a clue what you mean with this stuff about gold refining

>I'm writing all these words in hope he doesn't notice I don't know shit about the topic.
Why haven't you hanged yourself yet?

What is the ideal temperature of the planet? Can the trends even be reversed? How much emission needs to be cut to do so? If not, how much time are we even buying? If it's as serious as people make it out to be, will nations be willing to correct non-complying nations with military force?

I suspect deforestation plays a much larger part than carbon emissions. Is that true?

Too bad thorium has never left the prototype stage it's been in for the past 50 years, so until then your comment is just fiction

whats the point in arguing about _why_ the climate is changing and not just think that climate change is a part of what this planet does anyway and adapt to the changing environment to the best of our ability?

Mercury pollution is a byproduct of the gold mining industry. It bioaccumulates in fish, gradually making them less and less edible. Mercury poisoning makes you go violently insane.

One billion people depend on seafood as their primary protein source. Many of these places are extremely poor and cannot replace the protein source. People are being forced to decide on whether to starve or poison themselves to the point of being a danger to themselves and everyone around them.

Getting rid of sources of mercury pollution also attacks one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions (coal), so you'd be tackling that at the same time.

this is just fucking bullshit, france gets over 80% of its electricity from nuclear and theres been no implications for frenchobyl or honhonchima tier accidents whatsoever

I'll make it short because those are a lot of questions

There is no objective "ideal" temperature. The best way for both human civilization and the current biosphere would be for temperatures to stay within the limits of Holocene variability

If you're asking if the current rise can be stopped then the answer is probably no, at least not in human time scales. Even if CO2 emission would suddenly drop to zero today, the atmosphere would continue to warm for several decades.

Right now we're buying no time at all because there are no coherent international steps to curb emissions in any significant way.

I can't give you an answer to the last question

Deforestation is difficult because it can have both a cooling effect (due to decrease albedo compared to bare ground) and a warming effect (due to the decreased carbon flux into bogs and soils).
I'm not aware of a comprehensive attempt to quantify the effects of deforestation, but what I know is that it isn't more important than anthropogenic CO2/CH4 emissions. The radiative forcing of that sufficient to explain the warming trend. So deforestation (at least its effect on climate) would be a detail rather than a prime driver.

I think the reasons for climate change matter

Why do climate hoaxers insist on using RCP 8.5 for the model calculations they feed to the media? It's a totally unrealistic scenario.

maybe I'm reading that wrongly, but you're not raising that as a point against me, right?

why? the science is settled.

Trumps "I'm always right, your wrong" ego VS Scientists research and evidence.

Its real and Trump is a giant faggot.

I'm saying that concentrating on AGW and ignoring easily solvable issues that LITERALLY NO ONE IS ARGUING AGAINST like mercury pollution does a disservice to everyone and, if after reading this you don't at least consider looking into it, then your interest in preserving the environment is little more than virtue-signalling and/or an attempt to boost your ego by spouting talking points that have been force-fed to you and claiming victory.

If you actually care about the environment, then it's going to be a hell of a lot more involved for you than CO2.

why? dont you think that a planet with a molten core and tectonic plate movement does whatever the fuck it wants no matter what species thinks is in control of it? also our planet orbits the sun with a small differences in distance all the time because its just a rock floating in the vacuum of space and not a train fixed on stationary track, which is entirely out of our influence?

>, at least not in human time scales. Even if CO2 emission would suddenly drop to zero today, the atmosphere would continue to warm for several decades.
Russia confirmed stronk again when frozen wasteland becomes usable

I'm not very knowledgeable on models but afaik RCP 6 (and maybe 4.5) is much more commonly used in the scientific literature

we should adapt AND prevent it to the best of our ability

explain how the tides have risen barely in the past 100 years

I'm aware of all of that but none of those things can explain the temperature trends of today.
If you think otherwise, you can say what of those things is causing it, how and what you are basing that on.

P.S. the earth's core is solid, not molten

how do you prevent events like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea from happening? or are you saying that the climate has not changed in 335 million years and it only started to change when henry ford rolled the first a-model out?

because sea level has risen only (roughly) 2cm since that time

Then where is all the water from the melting ice caps going?

All the horror scenarios (+3C or even more) are based on RCP 8.5, realistic scenarios point to +1-1.5C at most, look it up.

so you're saying phasing out dirty fossil fuels actually also make sense for other reasons than the carbon budget.
So if we're on the same side on that, why are you attacking me?

I don't want to talk about mercury because, as I said, this isn't the topic of this thread and I don't think I really know anything about it that would make my comments worth anything. That seems to me to be the exact opposite of "boosting my ego", which is what you're accusing me of.

how can you know the data that was based on is legitimate?

how do you explain temperatures from example 60 million years ago when it was +14C warmer on average than it is today? did t-rex ruin everything with his SUV?

into the global ocean (?)

well the 1-1.5°C scenarios would be "realistic" in that sense because the global avg. temperature anomaly for land and ocean is basically already at 1°C (for land it's actually well past 1°C)

Fine. Let me ask you this, then. If you pull carbonic acid from the ocean and combined it with hydrogen to synthetically create JP-8 or other hydrocarbons, should people be allowed to burn it in an ideal world?

The ice caps are melting, and the sea level has only risen 2 cm? Keep dreaming Franz.

the main reason it was much warmer in the early Cenozoic was mainly because of higher concentrations of non-condensing GHGs like CO2.
If your question is why CO2 concentrations were much higher compared to today, then this has to do with the Wilson-(Supercontinent)-cycle of orogenesis.

I have no idea. Do you?

Do you think it's at all interesting that both the rate of run-off from ice sheets as well as the rate of rise in eustatic sea level doubled at the same time in the 1990s?

>then this has to do with the Wilson-(Supercontinent)-cycle of orogenesis
so was it man made? who did it? or did it just happen regardless of what species was the apex predator of that time

Will climate change be good for the biodiversity and general pleasantness of northern countries?

We, in the west will be the ones who will suffer the less from climate change. We are also far from being the largest contributors of the warming. Even Mongolians pollute more than us per capita.

All the others do nothing or just use our will to fight climate change to get money from us.

If they don't care, why should we?

Possibly, although the result of that isn't really seen. If the sea has only risen 2 cm.

>biodiversity
Extinction is the norm, survival the exception.

The entire process is carbon neutral and synthetically produced hydrocarbons made through that method do not contain the impurities normally contained in them. This technology isn't hypothetical. The US Navy uses it right now to reduce the reliance on supply lines for aircraft carriers. They have nuclear reactors running 24/7 anyway, so any excess energy goes into extracting carbonic acid and hydrogen from sea water. The result is that they can fuel their jets, they get a fuckton of pure water by exposing the oxygen to the atmosphere and the cost of the fuel is barely more expensive than fossil fuels.

The carbon taxation scheme being so heavily pushed by governments and lobby groups targets technology like this just as readily as offshore drilling, despite being a method of giving small isolated nations independence and reducing the need to ship tons of oil across the oceans.

Even if we strictly speak about CO2 emissions, the current stance of the vast majority of the scientific community is counterproductive.

of course it wasn't man-made, the question answers itself.
When you're interested in what impacts individual groups of species can have on climate, you don't have go much farther than 60mya. Around 49 million years ago, the Arctic ocean was stratified and had a fresh-water lid on top of an anoxic body of bottom water. Freshwater ferns grew on that top layer of water and after a while sank into the bottom water and got buried by sediment. This drew down enormous amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and actually started the entire globe on a general cooling trend that persists to this day (in this context things like the formation of the Himalayas and Alps should also be mentioned, which relates to my previous point about the Wilson cycle)
So if a bunch of freshwater ferns growing in the arctic can have a global impact that lasts for 49 million years, why are you so sure the appearance of the first truly global superpredator (Homo sapiens) will be negligible?

You are an actual retard and fell for (((their))) meme about the man made climate change debate.
If you watch climate change between 500BC until now you will see that such things happen naturally.
You could argue that the small increase that wasn't predicted by the matrix is man made, bit in math there is a margin of error in such things.
The debate itself isn't political it's just retarded.

The political debate would be Oil, war in sandnigger countries, unsustainable limited recources, illness, pollution, fracking, and jewish influence on our borders via petrodollar.

this. i just dont get it when people seem to think that nature is some static state that does not change, and when it does, everyone loses their shit and thinks everything is somehow fixed with economic decisions

No
there are many examples of global "transient climate perturbations" in the earth history and all of the are associated with huge species turnover, re-organization of the carbon cycle, (local) extinctions, migration of animals and so on.
Compare that to the remarkably stable climate of the Holocene during which human civilization developed.

...

Glaciers have been receding for the last 10,000 years, only in the last 50 have we tried to blame this on humans.

The Northern Atlantic actually has several problems other parts of the world don't, mainly due to the presence of the temperature-sensitivie overturning circulation around Greenland. Even small changes in this system of gyres would have huge impacts on the precipitation- and wind-patterns of Europe and North america. It's effect on things like local sea level and cyclonic storms is also hard to be underestimated

but it tells you something very important that particularly paleoclimatologists have suspected for a long time: That ice sheet disintegration is non-linear with a characteristic doubling time.

This was because when climatologists looked at the paleoclimate record, they found that sea levels oscillated rapidly rather than slowly in response to even small amounts of forcing. Take the last interglacial for instance. Temperatures were barely 1°C warmer than today but climatologists also identified very rapid fluctuations in sea level between 6 to 9m.

>So if a bunch of freshwater ferns growing in the arctic can have a global impact that lasts for 49 million years, why are you so sure the appearance of the first truly global superpredator (Homo sapiens) will be negligible?
i honestly think that what we do as a species is relatively insignificant in the long run because man is not all of nature, and there are forces at play that we absolutely cannot control. this planet is the base for all that lives in here, and as you said, even things we do not do can change climate. my point is not to deny if the climate is changing or not, its that it keeps changing even if all of mankind stops polluting right this second and just sits down until all of us die

If you say so. I can only repeat myself that I can't give you any comments or opinions on that because this is literally the first time I hear about this

i'm glad you've recognised that climate change belongs on /pol, since it definitely isn't /sci

do you have a functional model in your head, or are you full of soundbytes, received wisdom and a sense of superiority?

You don't find it alarming that this isn't being discussed globally?

youtube.com/watch?v=G8zOHZINyG8

Why can I not ask if valid and stay professor - I get kicked out by triggered pc peeps

Why not check if haarp measure devices be on when data gather

No metricfag shall ye trust

Why Kyoto protocol give all donations 2 world bank this pills libcucks faggots they easier than you hence divided & u cucks gave up on them

U rage u loose, no harm fellow man with monkey rage think. Talk to peeps, understand. Cruel contagious. Avoid emotion reaction or loose mind like past cucks. Righteous anger fakenews. Rise above even this. Based Ben Carson is good. Sleepy is ruse

Geif science back plox, let ems go with the peeps. Peeps not be shekels, no trades people it's wrong.

Rustle Jaramies with thinking. Dough boys lost generation their minds were....

can I ask you what you are basing that on?

here's a temperature reconstruction of roughly that time period
Can you tell me where you find this previous case of a comparable temperature trend?

is water vapor a 'green house gas'

when the party that controls every branch of government in the most powerful country on earth has set its face against acknowledging and acting on this topic, then I think this absolutely belongs on Sup Forums

yes

if you can tax it, double yes

This.

what you think isn't really relevant to the facts in this discussion
it doesn't change a thing about the fact that humans have had a measurable impact on earth's climate beyond any backround noise since at least(!) the 20th century (there are some climatologists who think the human influence can be detected as far back as 5000 years)
So unless you can come up with a concrete mechanism or process that would produce all the observed changes we see to today, I rest my case

Do you think dumping sulfur dioxide into the high polar atmosphere to alter global temperature is a viable solution?

Do you figure we are already doing this?

So the Carbon cycle.... If we stop cutting the Amazon rain forest down like it's no big deal, wouldn't this whole thing remedy itself?

What prevents the increased CO2 in the atmosphere from being converted into an equivalent proportion of new plant and vegetation growth? I want to see some numbers.

No I don't think this is a viable solution for two reasons:
The lifetime of sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere is usually from weeks to months before the fall out of the atmosphere or get washed out by precipitation. So it will by definition always only be a temporary solution

Secondly, the impacts this could have on precipitation for example are very hard to predict and result in all kinds of non-linear processes that, as it were, "do more harm than good".
It has always been my position that the best thing humans can do is minimize their influence on the biosphere-atmosphere system (that's why I have a lot of sympathy for the so-called "Ecomodernists")

Nothing this is where the bullshit comes in. You're supposed to forgot about how everything works. They never mention the carbon cycle. It's just to make you feel guilty, so you can get jewed out of more money.

>unless you can come up with a concrete mechanism or process that would produce all the observed changes we see to today, I rest my case


>make claim
>demand others prove it's not true

that's not how this works, friend

Sounds like Bill Nye.

No
don't get me wrong, it certainly wouldn't be bad either but we can't rely on plants to bail us out. If there were some kind of powerful vegetational negative-feedback on any carbon injection into the atmosphere, CO2 concentrations would be stable ever since the development of the first forests in the Devonian (which they aren't)

There is no source to your pic, it might be because it isn't real.
I believe in climate change but your graph was pulled out of someones ass.
There is no medival climate optimum around 1000AD eich should be higher than 2015AD and no drastic cooling in the renaissance.

Last question- do you think we will burn every last kilogram of fossil fuels that we can easily extract from the earth?

>be planet
>have naturally occuring pockets of oil/natural gas/etc
>one of these pockets is near naturally occuring volcano
>volcano erupts, lights up gorillion barrels of oil
>uncontrolled burn of oil/gas for 100+ years
>REEEEE FUCKING PRIMATE SUBSPECIES RUINS EVERYTHING!!
>????
>money will fix this

the only ways for plants to make an impact in the carbon budget and the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere are
- coal formation (which we can discount because that takes place on thousand year time scales and therefore can't help us)
- increase flux of carbon into soils

for a long time it was unclear if a warmer world with higher CO2 concentrations would result in more carbon being stored in soils (because of increased vegetation) or soils releasing more CO2 (because of increased aerobic respiration of organisms within the soils). Roughly half a year ago, there was a first quantitative analysis on the carbon budget of soils and it found that they contribute a net INCREASE of carbon into the cycle, which means we're bound to see MORE CO2 come out of the biosphere not less.

In short: You're going down a path of absolute folly when you rely on plants to save us

You realize ice core samples assume that the ice sheets have never melted before, correct? More plants, more trees = less C02 in the atmosphere. So what do we do about all that CO2 that humans are exhaling? Do we need to kill everyone to save the planet? This world will put itself in balance, we just need to stop killing the very mechanism that balances it out (plants). Replacing forests with parking lots IS the problem.

Dude, a tree is a massive carbon store. Hence why it burns, and has alot of energy in it.

This is like kindergarten larping; You could at least try.

it says in the very image who made the reconstruction
it's from a paper by Marcott et al. from the year 2013

It all boils down to this:
Will you argue about the naming/causation/non-causation or are you willing to enforce regulations instead of shilling for corporates.
Even simpler:
Will the world be a better place with an intact environment or not.

If climate change wasn't real it should be invented to have reasons to preserve a healthy environment.

I can answer any question you have about my position but in this case he's the one making a claim ("it's a natural process!"), so it isn't a fallacy to ask him to explain what he means by that

I'll give you a protip so that you stop emberassing our side.
If there is no drastic cooling at 79AD your graph is wrong.
Pompeii caused a drastic cooling that is documented by writers and has been proven with findings of that time.


As I said before it is a retarded discussion.
The real discussion should be: Do you want constant war over petrol, refugees, rich goatfuckers etc

No, for the simple reason that we can't get every drop of oil out of the deposits with our current technology. We can only get the stuff that comes out by itself (by way of the Lagerstättendruck) and then some additional stuff we push out with water.
So we couldn't, even if we wanted to